Category: 1 Timothy

Family Ministry: Evaluating Garland on “Power and Roles”

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, 2017, Christian Leadership, family, Family Studies, Freed-Hardeman University, Genesis, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Mark, marriage, Marriage Studies, Research Papers, Women Studies

In the December 2015 issue of the Gospel Advocate magazine, my article, “The Widows Church of Christ” was published.[1] It focused on my experience one summer filling in at a small congregation near Freed-Hardeman University that at the time was composed exclusively of women and widows. In the piece, I briefly retold a conversation I had with one of the sisters there, rehearsed a few biblical examples of areas of women’s evangelistic involvement, and discussed women’s role in the assembly.

A reader called my attention to share her disagreement with the following few lines:

Scripture shows that Christian women prophesied and prayed in New Testament times (1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 22:8-9), taught the Word of God accurately (Acts 18:26), and brought people to salvation (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14-15). Christian women also served one another in many diverse ways (1 Timothy 5:2; Titus 2:3-5; Acts 9:36-43). Too, Christian women were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, and “house church” hostesses (Romans 16:1-16).[2]

She disagreed with my assessment, but not because the early church used women in its ministry. She said, “I disagree because we [i.e. women] are stupid.” I responded, “Who told you women are stupid?” She matter-of-factly responded, “we are.” I flatly denied her claim. I do not know who taught her this, all I know is that an entire life in the church has not changed her mind. Unfortunately, this has not been my only experience.

Many women in church ask me to speak on their behalf about ideas. Why? It is not because they are shy, but because they are “women” and women have no “right to share” ideas about the church. Perhaps it is not fair to put all the blame on the church. However, if the church truly embraces a culture of female dignity and equality as image-bearers of God, and equality as recipients of salvation (Gal 3:26-28), then it would be hoped that our sisters and fellow heirs in Christ should have a better perception of themselves as women in the church and society, and as wives and mothers in the home.

The issue at hand may be reduced to one word —power. Who has the power and who does not in the family, the church, in the world? Who should? Furthermore, what is power, and is it an innate quality or something else. The late Diana A. Garland (d. 2015), former dean of the Baylor School of Social Work at Baylor University, discusses power in detail within the sociological perspective of marital relationships and the impact of biblical interpretation in a chapter of her insightful volume, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide.[3]

In it, she provides a working definition of power, explores Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33-37, summarizes gender roles in the home within the American context of the last century, and offers her interpretations of certain key biblical passages (Gen 1-3; Col 3:18-19; Eph 5:21-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6; 1 Cor 7, etc). It is argued here that Garland has presented a cohesive argument regarding power and Jesus’ teaching about power, but they are not complete discussions. Furthermore, Garland presents a brief social-historical summarization of gender roles which reflects a hierarchy —a model of marital headship— that has a built-in “inferiority of women” point of view. Garland’s interpretive trajectory is built on this framework.

This is problematic because Garland generalizes this viewpoint as one that is shared across cultures and eras, which it is not; moreover, she proceeds an attempt to dispel the notion that the biblical references of marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. Garland offers an egalitarian framework, but although she raises important concerns, I believe a complementarian framework is a better-supported framework for matters of church work.

Definition of Power

Defining Power

In the first place, it is important to understand Garland’s point of view on power, gender roles, and hierarchy.[4] Garland provides a working definition of power that is helpful as a starting point for the present discussion and builds her discussion of power with M. Weber’s words in mind: “the probability that one person is able to exert his or her will despite resistance from others.” Such power may be an influence on another “whether or not that influence is resisted or even recognized by any of the actors.” From this it is suggested that power is not best thought of as a personal characteristic but instead as an influence from relational dynamics; thus, “power is,” Garland concludes, “a dynamic in all family relationships. We are always attempting to influence one another.”

While she regards power as ultimately “neutral” she points out that this relationship influence may be used for good (protect the vulnerable) or for ill (take advantage of the vulnerable).

Power and Gender Hierarchy

Garland paints a picture of a community and culture which shapes a power dynamic within the family that has historically given men more power in marriage than women.[5] Similarly, family theorists David H. Olson and John DeFrain suggest: “Tradition has dictated that considerable power go to the males in the family,” and add the caveat, “but women often have more power than they or anyone else admit.”[6] Still, Garland argues that culture and economics have played a historic role in reinforcing certain gender roles in the home and the workforce.

For example, Garland argues that in “traditional” homes husbands earned a living for the family, and gave their wives “an allowance,” and the wife, in turn, managed the emotional and interpersonal relationships of the home. As an extension of the prevailing culture, the church followed suit by emphasizing strong hierarchal gender roles where men had authority and power, while women were expected to submit and obey their husbands in keeping with a military-type paradigm of authority and submission.[7]

Vulnerable and Inferior Women

This unavoidably led to what Garland speaks of as a view of hierarchy—or headship—with a built-in “inferiority of woman” model. In this view, women are vulnerable, in need of protection, in need of structure, and in need of a man to insulate them from the attacks of Satan.[8] She cites Judith Miles as her “poster child” of this viewpoint, who argues in her own work, “I was to treat my own human husband as though he were the Lord, resident in our own humble home.”[9] Consequently, she would never question her husband on anything because such was to question the Lord himself.

Unfortunately, not only did some hold that women were theologically vulnerable, but some even advocated women were emotionally not “up to the task” of ministry. The rise of a liberation movement of women stems was therefore a response to this form of hierarchy model that held an implied inferiority view of women. As the woman’s liberation movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, the church, according to Garland, was threatened by the rise of demands by women for better (egalitarian) family relationships.

This is Garland’s starting point: a historically rigid view of hierarchy and gender roles in society and the home as reinforced by society and church, which not only implied an “inferior woman” model but in many cases overstated the headship of man.

Inferiority Illustrated

Garland’s portrayal should not be dismissed out of hand as it relates to the American church. The relationship between culture and church is not always easily discernible. The church has been affected by this type of “inferior women” hierarchy and has been reaping the whirlwind of this type of gender oversimplification. A few examples are in order.

Roy H. Lanier, Sr., in his Contending for the Faith column, “The Problem Page,” once responded to a letter from an elder’s wife.[10] Her problem focused on her husband’s mistreatment and undermining of her maternal role based on stereotypical female “problems” (emotional and biological). His dismissive treatment of her had now trickled down to their children. Lanier’s response was extensive and centered on a demonstration from Ephesians 5:21–33 that headship does not permit, nor condone, such treatment. Lanier argued, “it is obvious that her husband does not love her as Christ loves His church.”[11]

In F. Dale Simpson’s 1972 book on leadership, Simpson addressed the problem of women in the mission field: “most married missionaries have to overcome the resistance of their wives to go to a foreign mission field.”[12] Therefore, while

women are biologically stronger than men… are as intelligent as men and more careful about details… women are not as temperamentally suited for carrying out the great commission as men.

F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age

Simpson offers only his experience and his opinion about the temperament of women in the mission field.

Long-time missionary and educator, Earl D. Edwards, provides a correction based on several behavioral studies.[13] Edwards rightly points out that different genders tend to have differences that are present at birth and socially amplified; yet, such gender-specific roles (functions) are gender differences and are not a reflection of gender inferiorities or superiorities.[14]

The Struggle is Real

In short, Garland is addressing a real problem about church culture and power, and how it relates to women and wives. It strikes at the heart of a woman’s worth in the home and in the church, and in ministry in general. The church would be wise to hear her call to be alert to this problem. However, Garland does not reject a simply abusive hierarchal power within the marriage as expressed in certain stereotyped gender roles. She clearly rejects any hierarchy with a power structure within marriage—i.e., male headship is not biblical and therefore not normative biblical teaching.

Jesus’ Teaching on Power

In the second place, Garland moves toward a brief exploration of Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33–37 and uses it to frame her discussion of power dynamics within two broad Christian family contexts: gender roles and discipline.[15] 

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mark 9:33–37 ESV)

In this passage, Jesus’ illustrates and demonstrates the true use of power in light of the fact that the disciples had been arguing over “who was the greatest” (Mark 9:34).[16] The passage is, then, a corrective focused on “how his followers should use what they have to serve others rather than exalt themselves.”[17] Indeed, greatness is measured in service, in welcoming the smallest, least powerful, to the most vulnerable of society (Mark 9:35). Unfortunately, the disciples still did not retain the lesson since Jesus must correct them again (Mark 10:13–14); yet, Garland sees Jesus’ point as follows:

Rather than using your power to benefit yourself, use it to serve and benefit others. Order your life as Christians by protecting and caring for those most at risk of others abusing their power.[18]

Diana Garland, Family Ministry

Garland affirms that Jesus “used his own power to care for them” by completing the passion of the cross which he predicts three times (Mark 8:31; 9:30–31; 10:32–34). Power is never conserved for oneself but instead is the instrument to serve others. Elsewhere Jesus says, 

The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. (Luke 22:25–26).

Garland’s Miscue

What appears to be lacking in Garland’s treatment of power in Mark 9:33–37 is the broader literary concern with discipleship in the kingdom of God which begins in Mark 8:26 and ends in Mark 10:52.[19] This is not a small matter because, in Mark 8:34, Jesus frames the discussion of true discipleship: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

To follow Jesus means to submit to his plan, to submit to one’s role in the kingdom of God. “Discipleship… comes then with the commitment to humility and self-denial, rejection and suffering.”[20] The hard lesson the disciples continued to fail to appropriate is that the kingdom of God is at the disposal of others—especially the vulnerable—is the transformative experience of discipleship. Thus, power and one’s role are interwoven. Jesus demonstrates this by submitting to his role as God’s servant on the cross (Luke 22:42).

The matter is not simply about power and influence, for Mark 9:33–37 and Mark 10:13–16 teach that discipleship includes one’s submission to God’s transforming kingdom. It is not that Garland is wrong, but that her framing appears incomplete which, for the attention given to her work overall, is a significant oversight.

Overgeneralizations on Power and Gender Roles

In the third place, Garland generalizes that power and gender roles have been male-dominated across cultures and eras, which it is not.[21] This is an important drawback. The American church may be influenced by the surrounding culture and societal gender role expectations (even as traditional roles are presently eroding), but extrapolating from it that all cultures share a similar or comparable power structure along gender lines in families is problematic.

Cultural Anthropology

Not all cultures share the same expectations for gender roles. For example, Paul G. Hiebert, anthropologist and missionary, writes,

while most societies place some responsibility on the father for rearing the child, this is not universal. But the biological and social dependency of an infant on its mother is recognized in all social societies.[22]

Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology

It appears that certain biological relationships (mother-child) have built-within them influences that exert power on behaviors, and while they may manifest differently in various cultures, they do not imply inferiority or lack of equality. These relationships, do, however, create forms of power management that can create a displacement of power. This is a vital element to evaluate Garland’s overarching premise that power exercised implies the inferiority of one influenced by another.

The Psychology of Parental Authority

Psychologists David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall describe that within parent-child relationships authority, or, power, is observable in three parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative.[23] The extent to which parents try to control their children is, “the most heavily researched aspect of parenting.” Parents either “set rules and expect obedience” (authoritarian) which tends to affect their children’s social skills and self-esteem. Or, they “give in to their children’s desires” (permissive) which tends to develop children who are agreeable and immature. And, parents who “are both demanding and responsive” (authoritative) tend to produce children who are well-rounded emotionally and socially.

A parent’s use, abuse, or nonuse of power can tend to have drastically different outcomes. The presumed element here in these relationships is that a parent is in a hierarchal relationship with their children (cf. Eph 6:1-4), and within this relationship, power is being managed and applied. Garland’s overarching point is that this is in principle antithetical to Jesus’ teaching on power, but power and role are inseparable. 

Family Power Management

Olson and DeFrain explore the wide range of “family power” management which is of significance here. According to them, “family power is the ability of one family member to change the behavior of the other family members.”[24] And while Garland concedes that “power” and “influence” are morally neutral, she approaches the subject of gender roles, power, and marriage from a morally negative point of view. Yet, as Olson and DeFrain point out, power —particularly family power— is a complex, dynamic interactive feature of a family system. Everyone in a family has power and everyone exerts it on the other member of the family. Even infants, according to Garland, have power. Yet, Garland suggests that a male headship hierarchy historically has mitigated women’s power in the marriage relationship, and therefore, empowers men and silences women, encouraging male power and delegitimizing female power and influence. Garland is not wrong if painting with broad strokes.

Marital Hierarchy

Garland’s argument that the removal of the hierarchy in male-female roles in marriage and family, and therefore must be applied to the church, is problematic.

Garland attempts to dispel the notion that the biblical references to marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. The creation account in Genesis 1–3 “provides,” according to Garland, “the primary foundation for a hierarchical understanding of husband-wife relationships.”[25] The order of creation does not prove male headship nor female submission; instead, Garland proposes that the pre-fall notation of “them” in Genesis 1:26–31 suggests shared dominion, shared identity, and a shared name. Moreover, the woman was not simply a “helpmeet” (KJV), but instead, is a soul-mate helper who is a “bone-and-flesh mirror image of the man who remains incomplete without her.”[26]

The Hebrew term ‘ezer certainly points to a “help” that comes from someone strong (Gen 2:20), as it is used in “warrior-esque” passages (Deut 33:29; Ezek 12:14), and is even used to describe God (Exod 18:4; Psa 121:1–2, 8). Thus, this is not a chain-of-command relationship where Eve is the weaker and more vulnerable of the two.

Garland provides a view of these passages that are cohesive and within reason of the evidence, but it is in Genesis 3:16, where the trouble lies. Garland argues that change after the fall is not a curse from God, but instead a pronouncement by God of how the relationship between Adam and Eve will now be.

In her view, God is being descriptive, not prescriptive. This is not an edict that imposes a new hierarchical relationship based on gender. Observe Garland’s argument that the fall

results in dire consequences for their relationship: the husband now shall rule over the wife. This new development implies that it was not what God had originally determined for their relationship. The dominance of the husband in Genesis 3:16 is described, not prescribed… it is the consequence of their joint disobedience.

Thus, the idea of hierarchical gender relationships is nothing but “a perversion of God’s intention in creation. The partnership has been destroyed. Sin disfigures the good God offered us.“[27] A variety of authors have offered a similar take in recent years. Linda L. Belleville, for example, is certainly at the forefront of pressing this interpretive option against the traditional view of male headship from Genesis 2–3.[28] Belleville, likewise affirms:

male rule finds no explicit place in the Bible’s theology at all. Adam’s sin is noted (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:20-22), as is Eve’s deception (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). But the man’s rule over the woman is not cited even once (not even for the husband-wife relationship). The simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT. The woman is nowhere commanded to obey the man (not even her husband), and the man is nowhere commanded to rule the woman (not even his wife).[29]

Belleville likewise suggests that Genesis 3:16 is a statement of the natural outcomes of the husband-wife relationship to follow due to the “fallen condition” of the world.

Garland, Headship, and the Biblical Narrative

It is the view taken here, in response to Garland––and to some degree Belleville––that Genesis 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 do provide the foundation for the traditional view of gender roles and should be regarded as normative.[30] The account of day six in Genesis 1 is a broad-picture passage. It speaks to the equality shared between man and woman as a distinct created order, or class, that is made in the image of God, and for this reason, have a human responsibility together to “have dominion… Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:26–28). But, when day six is given an expanded view in 2:4–25, the foundation for how human power is to be managed is explained—it is to be done in a relationship with someone just like Adam.

This power and influence are managed between husband and wife (2:20–24). And while the family power style is not explained in Genesis 2, Genesis 3:16 becomes an informative model of the way the husband-wife relationship exists outside the garden due to sin as God punished Adam (3:17–19) and the serpent (3:14–15), so God punishes Eve (3:16).

Problems with the Descriptive View

The argument that God is only describing how things will be, clearly undermines several theological themes which begin at this point. These are not mere descriptions of the fallen world.

First, God declared the serpent’s dust-filled days but also that he will feel the consequence of a crushed head by “the woman’s” offspring. This is not descriptive, this is a proclamation of Divine action and judgment upon the serpent, and salvation for humanity (John 16:11).

Second, God declared that Adam would face further hardship in the production of food and nourishment. Adam already understood work. He knew how to til and maintain the vegetation of the garden since day six (2:15). Whatever is forthcoming outside the garden for him is new and punishment for his sin. They are consequential.

And finally, God addresses Eve’s actions with further pain associated with childbearing and nuance to the relationship between her and her husband. When God says, “I will surely” do this and that, it must be interpreted as a consequence. The most pertinent here is the following, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16b).

The curse upon Eve is clearly speaking of a matter of power management within the husband-wife relationship. It is the same vocabulary and issue of power management in Genesis 4:7 with Cain and his personified anger who desired to control Cain. Cain must rule over its desire. Moreover, the language is found again in the Song of Solomon, where the bride turns this “curse” into a wedding vow, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me” (Song 7:10). Contrary to Belleville’s claim that the “simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT,” the Bible does recognize implicitly male headship.

Biblically Grounded Patriarchy is Never Condemned

Interestingly, Old Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke points out that of all the social injustices mentioned by the prophets of Israel, patriarchy is never mentioned among them. Following Abraham Heschel, he argues:

They challenged the injustices of their culture. The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered and awesome beliefs cherished as certainties, institutions endowed with supreme sanctity. They exposed the scandalous pretensions, they challenged kings, priests, institutions and even the temple.[31]

Waltke is probably correct when he argues that the problem that often affects interpretation is the definitions of concepts of patriarchy and equality brought to bear on the texts of Scripture. Eve was every bit Adam’s equal. They both shared the power and authority over the creation given to them by God. That power was to be worked out in their marriage in some form of family power style.

In Genesis and throughout the rest of the Bible, the family power structure to manage power is a hierarchy, with the husband as head of the wife and as Christ head of the church (Eph 5:23). Yet, such headship does not exist in a vacuum. A husband’s headship does not exist properly without being sacrificial, loving, or nourishing. Neither does it embrace a tyrannical hold on his wife. He is to be as self-sacrificing as Jesus was and is for the church. If the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church —his bride— then one should be careful in calling headship structure “a perversion of God’s intention” and a “partnership” destroyed as Garland has. For this reason, her work and view would be detrimental to family ministry.

Endnotes

  1. Jovan Payes, “The Widows Church of Christ,” Gospel Advocate 157.12 (Dec 2015): 29–30.
  2. Payes, “Widows Church of Christ,” 30.
  3. “Power and Roles” is chapter 11 in Diana R. Garland, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 370–411.
  4. Garland, Family Ministry, 370. All proceeding quotations in this paragraph are from page 370.
  5. Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
  6. David H. Olson and John DeFrain, Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths, 4th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 213. Power, control, and authority are continuously exercised in families, and struggles for personal power in families are exceedingly common. 
  7. Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
  8. Garland, Family Ministry, 373.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Roy H. Lanier, Sr., “An Elder’s Wife has a Problem,” 20 Years of the Problem Page (Abilene, TX: Quality, 1984), 1:177–81.
  11. Lanier, “An Elder’s Wife,” 178.
  12. F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age (Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972), 121–22. 
  13. Earl D. Edwards, “The Role of Women in the Work and Worship of the Church,” Protecting Our Blind Side: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007), 255–57.
  14. Edwards, “Role of Women,” 156–57.
  15. Garland, Family Ministry, 371–72.
  16. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  17. Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
  18. Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
  19. Jovan Payes, “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak,” In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark, ed. Douglas Y. Burleson (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015), 376–77.
  20. Payes, “Leaders Stand Up,” 376.
  21. Garland, Family Ministry, 372–92.
  22. Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 2d ed. (1983; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 197.
  23. David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall, Psychology in Everyday Life, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014), 84.
  24. Olson and DeFrain, Marriage and Families, 213.
  25. Garland, Family Ministry, 374.
  26. Garland, Family Ministry, 376.
  27. Garland, Family Ministry, 376–77. Emphasis original.
  28. See Linda L. Belleville, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, rev. ed., ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 21–103.
  29. Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” 31.
  30. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40; reprinted in Bruce K. Waltke, The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 457–75.
  31. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” 30.

Bibliography

Beck, James R. Editor. Two Views on Women in Ministry. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Edwards, Earl D. Protecting Our “Blind Side”: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ. Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007.

Garland, Diana R. Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide. 2d edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Hiebert, Paul G. Cultural Anthropology. 2d edition. 1983. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Lanier, Roy H., Sr. 20 Years of the Problem Page. 2 volumes. Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1984.

Myers, David G., and C. Nathan DeWall. Psychology in Everyday Life. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014.

Olson, David H., and John DeFrain. Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths. 4th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Payes, Jovan. “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak.” Pages 375–81 in In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark. Edited by Douglas Y. Burleson. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015.

_____. “The Widows Church of Christ.” Gospel Advocate 157.12 (Dec 2015): 29–30.

Simpson, F. Dale. Leading the First Century Church in the Space Age. Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972.

Waltke, Bruce K. The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.

_____. “The Role of Women in the Bible.” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40.

Q&A: May Women Teach Baptized Boys?

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Articles, baptism, Bible Study, Church Leadership, Church Practices, New Testament, Questions, Women Studies

The following question comes up once and a while in various forms:

Is it permissible for a baptized boy to be taught by a woman in the church’s Bible School program?

Questions like this often emerge from the heart of a concerned Christian parent whose heart wishes to honor the Lord. I pray and hope that the following guide will be helpful to those seeking an answer to this question.

The question has several elements which much be addressed. They will form the headings of this brief response in the following order: (1) what is the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12?, and (2) does baptism make a person an adult?

The Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12

Paul writes to Timothy, 

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (English Standard Version)

If left alone an argument may be made to the effect that a woman can never instruct nor be in a position of authority over a man —never. This would, however, be stripping the passage from its larger context and thereby generating a dangerously misleading analysis of these words.

Paul’s prohibition is built upon two lines of reasoning: (1) the order of creation, and (2) the profile of the fall. Observe:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:13–14 ESV).[1]

Although some apply this passage to domestic relationships (husband and wife), or to relationships in the world, such as in business (no women bosses), Paul is specifically addressing the “places” of Christian assemblies. He is not addressing all interactions between women and men, Christian or otherwise.

In verse 8, Paul uses the phrase “in every place” (en panti topō) which is a short hand for “in every place of assembly.”[2] Thus, the focus of Paul’s prohibition has quite a limited application —the Christian assembly. This is further made clear by the mention of the males —as opposed to the women— who are to pray in the assembly (v. 8), and the emphasis on godly women as doers of good works (vv. 9-10) and as active learners in the assembly (vv. 11-15).

Perhaps a point of clarification is in order. Paul does base the “headship/respect” principle for married couples on the order of creation (Eph 5:22–33), but with a different focus. It would be inappropriate to argue —based on 1 Timothy 2:11–15 alone— that women are to be silent at home before their husbands, and contradictory to passages that assume women have administrative authority in their own home (1 Tim 5:14), which also includes martial rights and due consideration from the husband (1 Cor 7:4–5).

Thus, the prohibition in this passage addresses the particular setting of the worship assembly. This must be kept in mind.

Before we move forward. I know there are many genuine believers that would cringe at the notion that there are teaching limitations along gender lines within the church assembly. Yet, while I understand some do believe this instruction to be ad hoc —unique— and therefore, not normative, Paul’s argument is built on his apostolic application of Genesis 2:18-25 and 3:1-14 which refer to the order of creation and the order of the fall.[3]

This should never be confused with an emphasis on the superiority of men and the inferiority of women, both are equal image-bearers of God (Gen 1:27; 2:18).[4]

Is Adulthood Bestowed at Baptism?

This is the heart of the question. The New Testament, in no place that I have found, marks baptism as the transitional act which bestows not only forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) but also adulthood upon the recipient. If adulthood is bestowed at baptism, then, what of those who are baptized in their 30s or 40s — have these people been simply children up to this point?

I have heard it said before:

If a boy is ready to make the most important decision he will ever make, then should he not be regarded as an adult? Why not?

While the argument appears to have merit, such a view can have disastrous consequences. Let me further my point. Does this also apply to young baptized girls? Are they now adults ready to marry and bear children? Should the newly baptized boy be thrust into church leadership now because he is a “man”? Why not?

This is not New Testament logic on three grounds: (1) it is nowhere mentioned in the NT, (2) baptism is about the “new creation” and forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:17), and (3) baptism is about a “new birth” —a sort of spiritual infancy (John 3:3). So the logic of the gospel runs in the opposite direction of the above claim. Baptism is certainly the most important decision a person can ever make, but that by default does not make a person an adult. This is not what the NT teaches. The assertion is an opinion and we must be very careful with opinions.

Still, even in the New Testament world, there were different words used to describe age groups.[5] One key point to observe is that the ancient world held very a different view of children than modern times when it comes to concepts like merit and value, property, rights, etc. Nevertheless, we will survey these words quickly:

  1. Bréphos means “young” and “fruit of the body” and thus refers to small children/childhood (2 Tim 3:15), newborn infants (1 Pet 2:2), and those within the womb (Luke 1:41, 44).
  2. The words país (small, little), paidíon (little child) and paidárion (little boy, John 6:9) are bit interconnected. Paidion may refer to someone not yet 7 (Matt 2:11,13–14), which covers are large span of time; whereas, a child from the ages 7-14 would be called pais (Luke 8:51, 54). The “adolescent” (14-21) was called a meirákion but the word is not used in the NT (2 Macc 7:25).
  3. There is téknon and teknion: These terms generally reflect “origin” (descendent), the early dependent state of children, and those who are figuratively so (téknon: Luke 11:13; Mark 7:27; Phil 2:22). And teknion was a nursery term for “little child” and is often affectionately used for Christians (John 13:33; 1 John 2:12).

Even when Paul speaks to Timothy and speaks of his “youth” (1 Tim 4:12), he is speaking in relative terms. The word (neotes) itself is relative and often associated with a “youthful spirit” and being impetuous[6] and covered a period until the approximate age of 40.[7]

In no instance is there an example from Scripture that a child becomes an adult at the point of baptism, regardless of the important choice they have made.

Finally, let me add the following. Christians are often called upon to become mature or complete (teleios 1 Cor 14:20). Even the church universal is called upon to grow into “mature manhood” (teleios aner) in the Ephesian letter (4:13; cf. Col 1:28, 4:12). What is more to the flavor of NT teaching is that baptism begins a process of spiritual maturity. It is not a commentary on biological maturity (the brain is not fully mature until the mid-twenties), on legal maturity and accountability (nations and cultures differ), nor on the wisdom the church depends on from its mature leaders.

We should never crush the embers of zeal among our youngest believers and disciples. We need to encourage them and give them an environment for their faith to be nurtured and yield its fruit. I would stress, however, that we do not artificially affirm something upon them —like adulthood— that there is no biblical nor social basis to do. Furthermore, we should not sideline our teaching sisters, many of whom are mothers and grandmothers who administer their own homes with children under their authority (Tit 2:4; 1 Tim 5:14).

So Where Do We Go From Here?

I see no scriptural evidence to remove a young baptized boy from a Bible class taught by a Christian woman simply on the merit that the boy is baptized. But, this does not settle the matter in my view.

The Scriptures do not clearly define a line that distinguishes childhood from adulthood. We often use the phrase, “age of accountability.” Again, there is no general consensus. Is age twenty, based on God’s punishment upon the unbelieving Israelites at the precipice of the Land of Promise (Exod 14:29)? If so, then no youth is accountable before that age and, therefore, baptism would be inappropriate.

Yet, there are plenty of references of young people called by the Lord and brought into His service. Samuel’s call in his early teens to service (1 Sam 3). Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign as king (2 Kings 22:1). Mary was certainly “young” (11-13 years old?) when she conceived Jesus by the power of God while betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1). In her oracle, she acknowledges her inclusion in God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:49). So, it is not a tidy situation to say young people cannot come into God’s plan.

By and large, the conversion excerpts from the Book of Acts narrate responses from believing adults: (1) the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), (2) the Samaritan converts (Acts 8), (3) the conversion of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8), (4) the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8), (5) the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9, 22, 26), (6) the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10-11), (7) the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16), (8) the conversion of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), (9) the Athenian converts (Acts 17), (10) the Corinthian converts (Acts 18), and (11) the Ephesian converts (Acts 19).

There may be some wiggle room in the reference to “household” in cases like Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34 to include younger believing members. R. C H. Lenksi, for example, viewed “household” (Grk. oikos) as a reference to Cornelius’ “family” in Acts 11:14 and 16:33-34.[8] In a study on the multi-functional social setting of the household in Luke and Acts, John Elliott notes that the term includes “family and kin,” but the term may also include “personnel and property.”[9] This may then include servants, slaves, and household managers who also responded to the gospel. At any rate, a baptized youth does not an adult member of a Greco-Roman household make.

At the heart of conversion, however, is the need for forgiveness of sin, the capacity for belief and obedience, and commitment towards discipleship. This would exclude the youthfully immature to the infantile of the house. So where do we go from here? Youths who respond to God in baptism are still youths subject to their own parents.

Concluding Thoughts

That being said, we concede that there is tremendous wisdom to maintain consistency in the church’s teaching program. Since there is no “clear-cut” age to gauge adulthood in Scripture, it would seem best for congregations and families to determine for themselves an age where the teaching program of the church exclusively selects male teachers during those transitional years from late middle school through high school. But, it should be clear that this is only a judgment call.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Everett Ferguson, “Tópos in 1 Timothy 2:8,” ResQ 33.2 (1991): 65–73.
  3. Bruce K. Waltke, “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Unique or Normative?,” Crux 28.1 (March 1992): 22-27. Repr., CBMW News/Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1.4 (Oct 1996): 4-7.
  4. Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 88.
  5. Albrecht Oepke, “pais…,” TDNT 5:636–39.
  6. H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr., Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 529.
  7. Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 124.
  8. “He was to tell Cornelius what would save both him and his house (family). It was a matter of saving this household.” R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 443. Later, regarding the Philippian jailor and his house: “The jailor and his family were baptized in the ordinary way by an application of water in the name of the Triune God” (Lenski, Acts of the Apostles, 683).
  9. John H. Elliott, “Temple Versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (1991; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 225. See also, Jovan Payes “Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus.”

Grace Greater Than Past Associations (1 Tim 1:12–14)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Commentary, Discipleship, Essays, Freed-Hardeman University, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters

[Chapter submission for the 84th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2020), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the “Anticipating the Future: My Story is His Story” Series. Our Place in His Story: Remembering the Past, Anticipating the Future (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered clicking here.]

Everyone has a past. Every conversion to Christ has a past from which it starts and a future to which it clings. Early in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians he wrote of their decisive change from paganism to the faith and hope that is found in Christ, noting, “how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:9–10). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.] This is the basic grammar of the Christian life: a conversion to serve God awaiting future deliverance at the return of Jesus. Between these two bookends (the past and future) the Christian experiences grace which is greater than our all past associations.

The Past is Worthless

In his autobiographical moments, Paul affirmed that the grace he experienced as a Christian—and apostle—surpassed any value attached to his past Jewish heritage. For example, in Philippians 3, Paul weighs the value of his life outside of Christ against what he finds “in Christ.” His past and present reads much like a “pros” (present) and “cons” (past) list. His past was filled with Israelite hubris and Jewish accolades (3:5–6). Richard Peace well observes,

not only was he blessed by birth with impeccable religious credentials, but as the result of his own accomplishments he had risen to the pinnacle of first-century Jewish spirituality. (31).

Richard Peace, Conversion in the New Testament (1999)

On paper, he was truly a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and it showed. Paul had been a blameless Benjamite Pharisee who zealously persecuted the church. Yet, at the time, his “zeal for God” was “not according to knowledge” (Rom 10:2). On the other side of the ledger, the “gain” (kérdos) this activity afforded him —Jewish “street cred”—amounted to being “loss” (Phil 3:7, 8) and “rubbish”[1] (3:8). Real “gain” is found in Paul’s slogan, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain [kérdos]” (Phil 1:21). Why? Paul had attained a full and realized relationship with Jesus Christ (3:8–16) manifested in the Lord’s “grace” (1:2, 7; 4:23). This is what every Christian shares in, grace that is greater than one’s past associations.

1 Timothy 1:12–14

Lost in Speculation (1 Tim 1:3–7)

Another important autobiographical statement by Paul is found in 1 Timothy 1:12–14.[2] Contextually, it comes off the heals of his reminder to Timothy that he was charged to address the dangers of “certain ones” (tís) bringing into the church religious “speculations” (ekzétesis) which emerge from teaching other doctrine(s) (hetero + didaskaleín) and indulging in myths and genealogies (1:3–4). Paul’s stress for doctrinal purity is well established. In Galatians 1:6, for example, Paul is opposed to any desertion to a “different gospel” (héteron euangélion). In Ephesus, the “end game” of those teaching other doctrines was simply “the inquiry” into the theoretical which subverts the actual carrying out of the plan of God (oikonomía; Knight 75) empowered by faith. The economy of God’s plan is not empowered by theory but by a Christian whose love is saturated by their pure heart, good conscience, and sincere personal faith (1:5). A Christian, distracted by “overthinking,” untouched by the work of God in their life will never be able to truly carry out their call to share the gospel of Jesus (1:6–7).

Healthy Teaching Restrains Evil (1 Tim 1:8–11)

There is no sin in exploring the contours of the faith nor engaging in deep religious and theological conversations, but this must never hinder teaching the law of God with its concrete condemnation of sin in all of its forms. Paul mentions thirteen types of “lawless” ones (1:9–10) for whom the law properly applies (nomímōs, 1:8). Paul affirms it is the primary purpose of the law “to restrain evil doing” (Guthrie 74) and this is why those that teach other doctrine(s) (1:3) fail in their endeavor to be “teachers of the law” (nomodidáskaloi, 1:7). Their speculations only offer that which is “contrary” (antíkeimai), and different (héteros),[3] to what is “healthy teaching” as concretely found and expressed in the law (1:10). This is the source of the convicting component of the gospel message, for through it God convicts humanity of sin but he does not leave sinners in their judgment. He incorporates them into the economy of his plan. This may be restated as, “no matter who you are, no matter where you have been, no matter what you have done, there is a place for you in the kingdom of God” (Payes). This key principle is the foundation for Paul’s own autobiographical thanksgiving in the next verses (1:12–14).

Thankful for the Grace of Jesus (1 Tim 1:12–14)

Paul frequently uses the Greek word chárin (grace, thanks, gift, favor, etc.) in his letters (100 times). In fact, he opens and closes all of his letters with chárin. This segment of 1 Timothy likewise opens (1:12) and closes (1:14) with this word, but with two different emphases—gratitude and favor (MM 684). Paul’s gratitude to his Lord Christ Jesus recognizes not only the enabling power (endunamóō) he receives from the Lord, but also the confidence placed on Paul to serve in his ministry (diakonía). Participating in the economy of God’s saving plan gave the apostle the experience of an overflowing “grace” (chárin). Paul never forgot his past, grace does not delete the past. It is clear that Paul’s past as “a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent” served as a motivation for his gratitude and zeal (Petrillo 18). His example demonstrates that God’s grace and mercy provides the means to cross the bridge from condemnation (1:8–10) to arrive at the healing place which creates the pure heart, good conscience, and a sincere faith (1:5) within the “foremost” sinner (1:15).

Paul’s “unbelief” (apistía) was met with the Lord’s compassion (eleéō), his “sins” and lawless behavior was met with the embrace of “the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1:14). When Paul was brought into the “in Christ” relationship mercy was shown to him, he did not have to earn it. In his case, however, his rebellion was in ignorance while zealous for God (cf. Rom 10:2); nevertheless, he was in sin, and he acknowledged that God initiated a relationship with him out of compassion. Luke records this divine extension of mercy and Paul’s response (Acts 9:1–19; 22:16). On paper, Paul should stand condemned, but God does the overflowing abundant thing by empowering him to be an example to every believer after him (1 Tim 1:16).

Grace Greater than the Past

If one is not careful there is no greater enemy than the past. The powerful functions of the brain to store and to recall memories, decisions, mistakes, sins, and to imprint on them feelings anew can leave a person in an emotionally dangerous depressive cycle. If ever there was a divine commentary to how the human conscience lives in agony face to face with the evil done in the body it is David and his penitential prayer in Psalm 51. It is felt in the imperatives of the first two verses: have mercy, blot out, wash me, cleanse me. David makes these petitions trusting in God’s “steadfast love” (chesed) and “abundant mercy” (rōb + rahamim). Grief over moral failure is real, it hurts, and it lingers; however, the Lord provides the healing presence of his Spirit to find “a clean heart” and a renewed “right spirit” (10–11). It will require working through grief and regret, and to take these weaknesses that will always be there, and allow God to supply the power of his overflowing grace to take such weaknesses and turn them into strengths (2 Cor 12:9–10). There are some Christians who will never let go, they will hold grudges, but God’s grace is greater than past moral failures and greater than the self-righteous critics.

The reason grace is so powerful is that God turns human expectations on their heads and forces his people to reorient themselves to accommodate how the grace of God is rolled out. The Scottish wordsmith theologian, William Barclay (1907–1978), wrote about “the essential grace” in his volume The Mind of Paul. There are a few points to appreciate. First, “grace always moves in the realm of winsomeness, of loveliness, of attractiveness, of beauty and of charm” (154). Second, “grace has always in it the idea of a gift which is completely free and entirely undeserved” (155). For Barclay, grace always has an esthetic value, it can be appreciated for its beauty and attractiveness, and it also can be exchanged without quid pro quo. Third, God’s grace is inexhaustible as well as “undeserved generosity” (161–62). Indeed, Barclay affirms:

Grace is not a thing of narrow limitations, it is not a thing measured out in painstakingly accurate quantities with just enough and no more, as an ingredient might be in a recipe for some concoction; in grace there is a certain infinity; a certain complete adequacy; a certain inexhaustibility and illimitableness. No demand that can ever be made on it can exhaust it or strain its capacity and its power. (Barclay 163)

William Barclay, The Mind of Paul (1958)

It enabled Paul to embrace and celebrate the Christian experience of grace in all of its surpassing capacity (2 Cor 9:8, 14; Rom 5:20; Eph 1:7, 2:7).

Grace empowers the child of God to move forward, it is not a crutch to revert back into lawlessness. There is no cheap grace with God. Grace is rich and deep, but it is not an excuse to continue in sin (Rom 6:1–2). The connection between immersion and grace is firmly established with the Christian’s identification with Jesus’ resurrection, for the risen Christian emerges to serve God in grace (6:3–14). The past is not ignored, but the legal metaphor[4] based on the Roman slave trade is employed to paint the transition in ownership explains how Christians went from servants of sin to become “servants of righteousness” and experiencing the grace of God (Rom 6:15–23). Grace enables the Christian to serve God unimpeded.

A Personal Aside

It is easy to get lost in the academic side of this study, but grace is not a sterile observable entity. Grace is an environment of generosity designed to rehabilitate those made in the image of God through the gospel (2 Cor 5:17). Over twenty years ago, I was on a street corner in the Mission District of San Francisco. I was a drug dealer and user. I abused alcohol. I was sexually immoral. I was in a gang. I was violent. I was a criminal. I contributed to the urban system of violence and fear. I was a sinner. But by the grace of God, I had the opportunity to read about Jesus in a Bible I found under my bed. The beauty of his grace was attractive. I desired it and wanted to share it with others. I traded in my old life for a life in Christ and was immersed for the forgiveness of my sins (Acts 2:38).

I never expected to be a preacher—I never expected to live past 18 years old. Today I am more than twice that age, and by the grace of God I preach the gospel and share it with my community in Bakersfield, CA. I’ve had some serious growing pains in the course of my Christian life. Some will only see me for my mistakes. Others have spurred me along because they too know that the grace of God is greater than our past associations and failures. Let us all ever be so minded.

Endnotes

  1. The word skúbalon is translated variously as “dung” (KJV, NET, CSB), “rubbish” (ESV, NABRE, NASB95, NKJV, NRSV), “refuse” (ASV, RSV), or “garbage” (CEV, NIV2011). Some think this word is either a swear/crude word (i.e, the s-word) or the closest thing to it. It certainly is a word that may literally mean “dung” (Sir 27:4) so in this sense it is construed as a vulgar word (TDNT 7:446; Wallace); however, the available lexical data does not support its use as an invective curse word (Manning). According to Friedrich Lang’s research, skúbalon is found to be an apt religious and philosophical analog for human “corruptibility” and “worthlessness” (TDNT 7:445). This appears to be clearly Paul’s point as he intensifies from “loss” to skúbalon; as in, his past is “all worthless trash” (ERV). It would have provided some shock value but not because it was a curse word.
  2. While some scholars argue that certain internal and contextual factors surrounding 1 Timothy—along with 2 Timothy and Titus—are not in keeping with the traditional view that Paul is its author (Dibelius and Conzelmann 1–5), they are however far from definitive (Knight 21–52) and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Guthrie 58). The present study presupposes Pauline authorship for the thirteen letters traditionally associated to him.
  3. The ASV reads, “if there be any other thing [héteros] contrary to the sound doctrine” (1:10), which more clearly keeps at the forefront Paul’s use of héteros than the rendering of the ESV, “whatever else [héteros].”
  4. For further reading on the legal metaphor in Romans 6 see, Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981):81–95. 

Works Cited

Barclay, William. The Mind of Paul. 1958. Repr., New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. 2d edition. TNTC. Vol. 14. Edited by Leon Morris. 1990. Repr., Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.

Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

Lang, Friedrich. “skúbalon.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 7. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81–95.

Manning, Gary, Jr. “Did the Apostle Paul Use Profanity?” Biola University Good Book Blog. 2015. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.

(MM) Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Payes, Jovan. “Leaving a Street Gang for Christ.” Gospel Advocate Blog. 2015. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.

Peace, Richard V. Conversion in the New Testament: Paul and the Twelve. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Petrillo, Denny. Commentary on 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Abilene: Quality Publications, 1998.

Wallace, Daniel B. “A Brief Word Study on Skúbalon.” Bible.org. 2007. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.

Book Review: Relaunch

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Book Reviews, Books, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Leadership Ethics, Pastoral Leadership
Relaunch - Rutland - Cover

Mark Rutland, Relaunch: How to Stage an Organizational Comeback (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2013), hardback, 206 pages.

A walk in the clearance section (because I hate paying full price) of my local Lifeway Christian bookstore led me to the present volume on leadership. The price, packaging, and presentation of this David C. Cook book persuaded me to purchase it. I am very thankful I did and now I feel I’m playing catch-up on leadership insights from Dr. Mark Rutland.

Dr. Mark Rutland has 13 books under his belt that can be obtained in many formats, and he also maintains an active teaching, humanitarian and blogging presence through his National Institute of Christian Leadership and Global Servants organization. In Relaunch, Rutland provides insights into his ministerial roles as Associate Pastor (Mt. Paran Church of God) and Senior Pastor (Calvary Assembly of God), and his presidential posts (Southeastern University, Oral Roberts University). These experiences serve as a springboard to show his credibility to speak to leaders about the core issues of turnaround leadership in a variety of settings.

ReLaunch: A Survey

ReLaunch is about turnaround leadership. It is comprised of 14 chapters, arranged in three parts followed by an epilogue all wrapped within 206 pages. In Part 1 (chapters 1-4), Rutland casts a common-sense vision for understanding the intangible nature of leadership. Leadership is, in a nutshell, the art and skill to understand an organization’s goal and dream and to connect all its actions into realizing the dream, so that when the leader’s work is “done” the organization is in a better position for the next person to lead. Leadership then is to make the dream a reality by being the everyday “driving force” behind this achievement.[1] Here, Rutland spends some time surveying key experiences within three organizations’ turnarounds (Calvary Assembly of God, Southeastern University, and Oral Roberts University).

In Part 2 (5-11), Rutland articulates and sets forth seven steps that are critical to turnaround leadership within a failing organization. Turnaround leadership, according to Rutland, cannot be accomplished without facing institutional reality and communicating the organization’s vision relentlessly from top to bottom (Steps 1-2). Turnaround leadership must focus on alignment for the organization within the correct niche market, by its message, and through the most effective medium (Step 3). This requires creating an executable strategy by finding which system within your organization that can make the most impact (Step 4). Rutland demonstrates that in a turnaround you must either restore or create the organization’s dream and this is done by shifting its internal culture so that its members can support the organization’s promise to the world (Step 5); moreover, this fuels the need to keep an eye on quality, which is to say it that the organization clearly delivers what it publically promises (Step 6). Finally, Rutland underscores the psychological importance of measuring and celebrating success within a turnaround because these actions promote meaning and value, and generate higher levels of positive energy within the members of the organization as they drive towards turnaround (Step 7).

In Part 3 (12-14), Rutland closes ReLaunch with a section on how to build a turnaround team. I believe these chapters alone would be worth the purchase of the book. The premise of building a turnaround team is to have the proper alignment within the organization. In such a case, adding new members (“hiring”) who fit the goals, vision, and culture of the turnaround is critical because, otherwise, you are starting “the old cycle over again.”[2]  This boils down to finding the right person, at the right time, for the right reason (“job”). Rutland spends time developing a system he uses to put the right people in the right roles (his helpful Finder-Binder-Minder-Grinder system). Unfortunately, the changes which take place during a turnaround are hard for the established members (employees, board members, volunteers, etc.) of the organization. Rutland discusses, then, the last resort a turnaround leader must face when preexisting employees can not adjust – he talks about the troubling art of firing. Rutland shows compassionate insight. It is important to clearly promote your new vision and continue to hold everyone accountable to this turnaround goal to recapture the old dream (or create a new one). He counsels, “Some can make the change. Some can be retrained. But not everyone can make the turn.”[3] Finally, Rutland addresses the importance of forming a board and sketches the difference between an emotional (undependable) board, a legalistic (robotic; holds to if-then thinking) board, and a holistic (balances the tensions found in emotional/legalistic thinking) board. Rutland praises those boards which respect their limits, support their leader’s role in the organization, and “empowers” their leader to do their best.

ReLaunch ends with the Epilogue where Rutland speaks to the inner life of the turnaround leader. It is honest, frank, and interwoven with experience of a leader who has “nosedived” and had his own inner turnaround within his life and family. Rutland warns that a leader must keep pushing forward and never fall into the trap that defeat or victory are final experiences. Also, leadership is costly because it is all-consuming: “There is always a cost.”[4] I found a sense of great depth when Rutland discusses “the most important truth” he has learned: to be a healthy leader, “stay free in God’s hand.” In other words, be willing to take the roles you are “called” into, execute its duties faithfully, but understand that you do not need to have it; moreover, learn that you can be “good” (acceptance) if you have to leave that role. Your identity should not be tied to your role, but instead, tied to your God.

Strengths and Weaknesses

ReLaunch is about turnaround leadership and Rutland succeeds in providing the key principles and steps which can deliver what he himself has accomplished and promises – turnaround. Rutland clearly articulates, with a narrator’s voice, addressing the philosophical terrain of turnaround realities. There is no fluff in this book, it is direct honesty, based on real-life examples and personal illustrations. If anything, ReLaunch provides excellent insights on how to point out the turnaround benchmarks when discussing the future of your congregation, school, and organization. This is not a book on theory alone, but practice, and framed by someone who has lived on the front lines. The seven steps are “shovel ready” and await a bold leader to employ them when faced with the need to stage an organizational comeback. ReLaunch is a real book for real leaders.

I found the leadership insight focused as Rutland epitomizes his definition of leadership as tethering all of an organization’s parts to its dream and goals. This is particularly displayed in this compassion and awareness when discussing hiring and firing team members during the turnaround. Also, Rutland’s experience with working with a board demonstrates the common problems felt not only in the business world but also in the church. It illuminates that even within churches elderships (“boards”) may not always embrace a healthy culture (emotional, legalistic). Too many times, we tie such roles with a right to be right, but Rutland shows that boards and elderships may be vulnerable to being imbalanced. Rutland is spot on.

If I had to make a critique regarding ReLaunch it would be in terms of its top-down leadership approach (as assumed in the book) and its application to the leadership model of the church as revealed in the New Testament. Dr. Rutland assumes the equivalent role of pastor and preacher which is common in many circles of Christendom.[5] The New Testament does not make these equivalent roles, instead, a pastor (= elder, overseer) is a distinct responsibility that applies to a very uniquely qualified man, as he serves within a group of other men of equal caliber. This does not apply to the role of preacher or evangelist.[6] This is not to say that mentors cannot shepherd their fellow believers, but in terms of a distinct church role, the terms are not equivalent. Still, this does not undermine the richness and essence of the book, but it does begin the leadership discussion from a different point than the New Testament. Rutland would probably disagree with that assessment.

Of course, Rutland addresses a readership from a broad spectrum. ReLaunch is not specifically a church leadership book, it is a book that may apply to a ministerial context like mine among churches of Christ. Nevertheless, the preacher often finds the need to be the Chief Culture Officer (CCO) of the congregation; consequently, a preacher can within their role help lead an organizational comeback with the cooperative efforts of their overseeing eldership. But, as Ron Clark observes, “few books are written specifically for ministers about our style of ministry” where the pastor and the preacher are distinct ministries in the body of Christ. Clark observes that most church leadership material is based upon church models which are dissimilar to churches of Christ, or based upon business models which have been given a Christian spin.[7] Again, this is not to say the principles are not applicable, nor does this speak to the quality of ReLaunch. The quality of the content of the book exceeded my expectations.

Recommendations

Aside from the exception and critique provided above, Dr. Mark Rutland provides a leadership model that is exceptional. An administrator, board member, president, father and mother, elder, preacher, deacon, and if there is anyone in between can yield a great deal of practical wisdom for a turnaround in their public and professional lives but also in their private lives. The principles in ReLaunch and their capacity to effect meaningful change have broad applications.

I would recommend this book to every leader in any context. I would also recommend ReLaunch to every incoming preacher entering an established church, and to every incoming administrator entering a new organization. I would also recommend this book to every elder and leader who believe their church, ministry, or organization is in decline. The truth is, every organization needs to ReLaunch at times. We must at times create a new dream, but most of the time we must recapture the dream and relaunch it to do so. Jesus even told the church in Ephesus to relaunch, “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first” (Rev 2:4-5 ESV).[8]

Endnotes

  1. Rutland says, “Some dream well. Some define well. Others may tether well or excel at organizing. The art, though -the great craft of leading others- is the connection between the dream, its proclamation, and making the dream the driving force of everything that is done” (23).
  2. Rutland warns, “You can’t let the people who are devoted to the old ways do the hiring, or else you’ll just start the old cycle over again. You’re cultivating the soil in which your new vision and culture can grow” (161).
  3. Rutland counsels, “when you are honest about your expectations, and your team members are honest about their ability and their commitment, parting ways doesn’t have to be a crisis or a drama. In the end, you have to articulate exactly what you expect from your employees. You have to hold people accountable. If you’re going to turn a ship, there are going to be people who did things a certain way to get them into this mess. Some can make the change. Some can be retrained. But not everybody can make the turn. You need to communicate this to your staff long before it becomes an issue” (174).
  4. Rutland frankly says, “There is always a cost. If we don’t consider it before we begin to lead, then the cost may catch us by surprise midcourse. Emotional and mental exhaustion can lead to a dangerous level of toxicity” (198).
  5. By Christendom I mean to describe all religious groups (denominations, non-denominations, etc.) which historically follow Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Messiah (Christ), and accept the Bible as the revealed word of God. I make a distinction between Christendom and Christianity revealed in the New Testament and supported by the Hebrew Scriptures.
  6. I have written several essays in connection to elders, overseers (“guardians”), and pastors. They are available on my blog: “‘Is the Pastor In?’: A Brief Look at a Misnomer,” “Guardians of the Church: A Reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7,” and “Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus.”
  7. Ron Clark, Emerging Elders: Developing Shepherds in God’s Image (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2008), 9; Jovan Payes, “Book Review: Emerging Elders,” BiblicalFaith.wordpress.com.
  8. English Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).

The Widows church of Christ

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Articles, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Ecclesiology, Gospel Advocate, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Publications, Women Studies

Reprinted from the December 2015 issue of Gospel Advocate Magazine.

20180131_133232

When I was a younger preacher looking for opportunities to preach and teach, I helped a congregation which was, to my surprise, exclusively comprised of widows. The “Widows church of Christ” (as I shall call them) taught me a great deal about fidelity to God’s Word in the face of a temptation to do otherwise.

It had never crossed my mind that I would stumble upon an all woman congregation. My assumption that there would always be mix-gender congregations was completely shattered. I’m glad.

My first reaction, I must admit, was arrogant. “Poor brethren, you have no leaders.” I had forgotten that still they had the Lord, the Apostolic Word. They had different talents and skills to be used on behalf of the Lord (1 Cor 12; Rom 12). They still gathered in His name, communed at the table of the Lord, gave of their financial means, offered the fruit of their lips. They were still the blood-bought body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18; Acts 20:28). They still had the responsibility to bring the gospel to the world (Mark 16:15-16; Matt 28:18-20).

I Asked a Question

I asked a sister why they invited male preachers to teach and preach when they could minister the word to themselves. After all, Scripture shows that Christian women prophesied and prayed in New Testament times (1 Cor 11:5; Acts 22:8-9), taught the Word of God accurately (Acts 18:26), and brought people to salvation (2 Tim 1:5; 3:14-15). Christian women also served one another in many diverse ways (1 Tim 5:2; Tit 2:3-5; Acts 9:36-43).

Too, Christian women were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, and “house church” hostesses (Rom 16:1-16), demonstrating that there is not a ministry our sisters cannot participate in (Acts 8). There are many sisters in the Lord mentioned throughout the New Testament as servants of God, evangelistic collaborators, and financiers. To say it in another way, Christian women can minister the gospel to the world without hindrance.

She responded, “Because the men are to lead prayers and preach God’s Word in the assembly.” She further explained, “We do have our own Bible study together as sisters during the week, but on Sundays we plan for visitors. We respect God’s plan for the worship assembly.”

This was a reference to 1 Tim 2:8-15, and the Apostle Paul’s instructions for prayers and teaching in the public assembly. In fact, the phrase, “in every place” (en panti topō 2:8) is a New Testament shorthand for “in every place of assembly.” In the assembly, Paul emphasizes “the preservation of male and female distinctions” by providing a “distinctive sphere” for Christian men and women to operate within.

In this setting, Christian “males” (Grk. andras) are to lead prayers on behalf of the body of Christ (2:8), provided they have a lifestyle consistent with godliness. Christian women are to “likewise” demonstrate godliness when assembled for prayer (2:9-10). Paul, then, adds the command that in the assembly Christian women “must learn in silence in full submission” (2:11). This does not suggest that she should check her brain in at the pew, nor is this a term that requires absolute silence. It simply explains her participation in the assembly as peaceful (2:2).

Paul goes on to explain, however, that a sister’s participation in the assembly is limited (2:12). He affirms, “I do not permit a woman” (1) “to teach” nor (2) “to have authority over a man.” Instead, she is “to be in silence” as an active learner (2:11). This instruction is explained (2:13 “for”) to be connected to the order of creation and the order of the fall along with its consequences (Gen 2-3), and a reminder of her demanding ministry towards her own godliness, her family and household (12-15).

Expanding the Role of Women

Although there is considerable literature centered on expanding the role of Christians sisters in the assembly beyond the above biblical dimensions, it was refreshing to see a group of sisters in Christ concerned with God’s guidelines for the worship assembly – even though they could have worshipped God among themselves.

It was a few years earlier that I had received a letter from a congregation where their elders unanimously offered “a position statement on the expanded role of women” in the congregation where they had oversight. They acknowledged that the “congregation’s thinking on this subject has been evolving for the past several years.” The letter outlines several roles where their sisters had evolved including teaching and co-teaching co-ed adult Bible classes, and Scripture reading in Sunday morning worship.

They further expressed their “intention to, in the near future, begin using women to serve the communion emblems, preside at the communion table and lead public prayers during the regular worship services.” They had not, at that moment, any intention to have “women as elders” and “women as pulpit ministers.”

One of the arguments used to sidestep the words of the Apostle Paul is that the text reads, “I do not permit”; hence, this verse does not represent “God’s law.” Far from it. The argument goes, that since he is “addressing a specific time and place with his statement” then Paul has no concern for providing “a law for all time.”

The question then becomes if the injunction by the Apostle is only valid when addressing the situation Paul is speaking to, and has no permanent place as God’s law for the church, then what about the other logical appendages to his argument? Is quietness a situational matter? Are the issues of holiness, modesty, self-control, learning in quietness merely situational and hence not of any permanent value because Paul writes, “I desire” (2:8) and “I do not permit” (2:12)? Or is it only the prohibitions which are situational (“I do not permit”)? If so, the positive statements in this text demand our sister’s presence in the assembly to be embraced with godliness, modesty and learning in quietness and submission. Or are these situational as well and therefore not God’s law?

The fact of the matter is that Paul ties this entire argument for the when the church assembles “in every place” to the events of creation, the order in which the first humans were made, and the admission of Eve being deceived. The weakness is not in Paul’s argumentation, nor in his use of “I.” The weakness lies with a hermeneutic which circumvents the natural reading of the passage.

Concluding Thoughts

My brief stint with the good sister at The Widows church of Christ was a powerful reminder that we can be faithful to God’s inspired texts regarding our gender roles in the assembly. My good sister showed me that faithfulness in the face of a difficult and complicated ministry was possible. Furthermore, they did not sell their building and go elsewhere; instead, they remained in the town, “because,” as she concluded, “the Lord’s body needs to be here.” God bless our sisters who are convicted to maintain their godly roles in the assembly and participate in so many amazing and unsung ministries.

Jovan Payes preaches for the Highland Church of Christ in Bakersfield, Calif.

To subscribe to Gospel Advocate, click here.

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Bible Study, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Essays, Exegesis, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Interpretation, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Technical Studies, Translation, Women Studies
college papers

There is a considerable body of research and literature available to discuss 1 Tim 2:11-15 which is one of the key New Testament passages discussing gender roles in worship and ministry of the church. This paper can only hope to provide introductory insight to the issues and difficulties of bringing the words of Paul from Greek into English so that the church can apply these apostolic words in the twenty-first century. In fact, Ann L. Bowman, a complementarian, summarizes the difficulties every exegete must face when sifting through the various grains of this passage.[1] In spite of these difficulties, a satisfactory translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 can be rendered into English, the epistolary pericope can be analyzed syntactically, and the results from this analysis can be helpful in providing guideposts for application in the worship and ministry of the Lord’s body.

Textual Observations

The textual basis for this translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 is the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (UBS5), supplemented by the 28th revised edition Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28).[2] There are only two textual matters of interest, the first being a textual variant in 2:14 and other focuses upon whether “the faithful saying” (3:1a) concludes the paragraph at 2:15. A third issue is the way certain words can or should be translated, especially the hapax legomenon authentéō. In the first case, the NA28 critical apparatus shows a variant in 2:14. Instead of the eksapatētheîsa (“having been thoroughly deceived”) found in the main text, late manuscript evidence has apatētheîsa (“having been deceived”). Clearly, the manuscript evidence for eksapatētheîsa is earlier (4th to 6th centuries) and stronger (Aleph*, A, D*), than the late (7th-9th centuries) and weaker evidence for apatētheîsa (Aleph2, D1). The late reading most likely is a result of late editorial harmonization of the apatáō verbs in 2:14.

Second, the paragraph structure in UBS5 and NA28 are in agreement the “faithful saying” of 3:1a conclude the paragraph. introduce the “saying” regarding guardians (3:1b). A. T. Robertson, for example, affirms this “phrase points to the preceding words (not like 1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.”[3] However, the “faithful saying” can be viewed as introducing the protasis, “if someone aspires…,” in the present simple conditional clause of 3:1b.[4] Third, certain constructions and verbals were significantly difficult to translate with precision. The prepositional phrase en hēsuchía in 2:11, 12 may be translated as the act of “silence,” or “quietness, gentleness” as a quality of behavior. The perfective compound aorist passive participle eksapatētheîsa “when she was fully deceived in transgression”[5] in balance with the force of historic use of the perfect active indicative gégonen is unsatisfactorily rendered into English as “was.”[6] Two more substantial problems for translation and interpretation are the verbs authentéō (2:12) and sōzō (2:15a).

A Translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15

The tentative translation which follows is presented based on the analysis and considerations and interpretive decisions as explained later in this paper.

11 Let a woman learn in silence in full submission; 12 and I do not permit a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was formed first, afterwards Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but as for the woman, she was when she was fully deceived in transgression; 15 but she shall be delivered by bearing children, if they continue in faith and love and consecration with sound judgment. (Author's Translation)

One of the concerns this translation intends to address is to express, as clear as possible, that the domestic realm is where submissive women find non-soteriological “deliverance.”

Context and Exegetical Analysis

It is important to observe that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is a part of larger context specifically dealing with the connection of Christian women and the assembly of the church.[7] This topic begins in 2:9, although an argument can be made that the theme begins in 2:8 since it establishes the location where Paul’s instructions are to take place with the phrase en pantì tópō (“in every place”). This locative expression appears to be a shorthand for “in every place of assembly.”[8] It is in this context that the third movement of desired conduct “in every assembly” of the church is argued (2:8, 9-10, 11-15). First, godly Christian men are to lead prayer in the place of assembly (2:8). Second, Christian women are to profess godliness through good works (2:9-10). Thirdly, as an extension of 2:9-10, Christian women are instructed to exhibit submissiveness in the assembly by being learners, not instructors (2:11-15).

The overall structure of 1 Tim 2:11-15 may be subdivided into two groups marked by Paul’s imperatival command, manthanétō (11-12), followed by the explanatory gàr (13-15) which directs his reader(s) to the rationale for this command. Each group is bound structurally with the postpositive dè, marking their internal connection and transitions. This then provides a structural framework toward from: 11 dè 12, gàr 13 kaì 14 dè, dè 15. This does not remove the complexity of the passage as a whole, but the grouping does allow the exegete to focus on the syntax of these two movements.

In the first group, for example, the subject of the present active imperative manthanétō could have been supplied from 2:9-10 (gunaîkas, gunaiksin), but the word order of 2:11 begins with an anarthrous nominative gunē.[9] Its repetition along with the verb can be viewed as an important “topic marker or shifter” (295);[10] hence, the command “let a woman learn” shifts toward a new topic from 2:9-10.[11] Paul places “a requirement” upon the “woman” in the assembly[12] which he expects to be followed in “an ongoing process.”[13] The manner of learning in the assembly is defined by the two dative prepositional phrases (en hēsuchía and en pásē hupotagē). The meaning for hēsuchía pivots between “silence” and “quietness, rest,”[14] but uses of the prepositional phrase en hēsuchía in non-biblical Greek (Philo and Ignatius)[15] meaning “in silence” provides some insight here and in verse 12.[16] The manner (action or circumstance) under consideration, then, is probably “in silence.” Likewise, the silence is en pásē hupotagē (instrumental of manner), “in full submission” anticipates further nuance in verse 12.

1 Tim 2:12 nuances the prohibition with a list of three complementary infinitives[17] and the gnomic present active indicative[18] verb epitrépō. The postpositive dè marks this connection and transition. Furthermore, if S. E. Porter is right, placing the infinitival didáskein first in its clause marks it as the “most important element” in its clause.[19] The prohibition’s main concern then is didáskein gunaikì (“to teach by a woman”) and its counterpart authenteîn andrós (“to have authority over a man”). Paul specifically prohibits (ouk) theses activities within the assembly. Despite some difficulty in ascertaining the precise contextual meaning of authenteîn (taken here as “to have authority over”),[20] oudè joins these two infinitives to “explains what sort, or what manner, of teaching is prohibited to women.”[21] The contrastive alla is brought in to provide a strong contrast to the prohibition by setting up the “permission” eînai en hēsuchía (“to be in quietness”). The implied helper verb epitrépō reinforces, as an exhortation, the positive command in 2:11 to “learn in silence in full submission.” This second use of the instrumental of manner en hēsuchía gives strength to the view that verses 11-12 solidifies submission and quietness as the hallmarks of Christian women receiving instruction in the assembly.[22]

The second group of verses (2:13-15) is marked by an explanatory gàr providing insight into the prohibition of 2:11-12. The explanation in 2:13 does not stem from any noticeable wordplay within the context; instead, a logical appeal is made to biblical texts outside of 1 Tim. The argument and explanation is derived from Genesis 2-3 in the LXX, and it serves as the foundation for the boundaries of Christian women in the church assembly.[23] The aorist passive indicative verb eplásethē is constative in force and views the formation (the creation) of Adam and Eve as completed.[24] The emphasis is laid upon the order of creation marked by the use of the adjectival use of prôtos, which suggest “first of several” in order to provide clarity to the substantive it modifies.[25] Thus, the prôtos and adverbial eîta have the chronological force of, “Adam, the first one, was formed, next Eve was.”[26]

Paul extends his thought with kaì, adding a “second fact” to his argument.[27] He begins the clause with a subject and its predicate (2:14). The first clause takes Adam and the aorist passive constative ouk ēpatēthē  (“Adam was not deceived”);[28] in the second clause, dè calls “attention to the singularity” of the woman being “deceived in transgression”;[29] hence, the translation, “but as for the woman, she was [deceived].”[30] The perfect active indicative verb (gégonen) takes on the historic emphasis calling dramatic attention to the act of “being” deceived. In addition, the compound anarthrous nominative aorist passive participle eksapatētheîsa is perhaps perfective[31] in that ek intensifies the verb (“fully deceived”). Following hē gunē argues for it to be read adjectivally, and places the adjectival participle in the predicate position; asserting, that it is “the woman who was fully deceived.” It is this large subject which is modified by the dative of reference en parabásei “with reference to transgression.” The subject and its modifiers are viewed historically (gégonen), and echoes Eve’s confession, “The woman [hē gunē ] said, ‘the serpent deceived [ēpátēsén] me” (Gen 3:13).[32] “Paul bases his arguments,” observes egalitarian T. C. Geer, “on the creation stories in Genesis.”[33]

As in verse 12, the dè in 2:15 marks the sustained continuity from 2:13-14 which serve as the logical basis for Paul’s command in 2:11 and prohibition in 2:12. 1 Timothy 2:15 concludes the argument with an inverted third class conditional statement.[34] While there are several important “exegetical cruxes” in 2:15,[35] this is the overarching grammatical crux since it is the verse’s organizing principle. First, conditional sentences are comprised of two clauses, the “if” clause (protasis) and the “then” clause (apodosis). In general, the first clause contains the contingency under consideration; meanwhile, the second clause is a statement (the portrayal) about what will happen, or not happen, should the contingent action occur. There may be, however, other relationships at work besides a cause and effect one, and context must inform the exegete.[36] Second, contrary to a usual “if-then” structure, the apodosis is introduced first followed by the protasis (“then-if”). This can be done since the apodosis is “grammatically independent,” but it is still “semantically dependent” upon the protasis for understanding its fulfillment (Matt 4:9; Heb 6:3).[37]

1 Timothy 2:15, then, begins with the fulfillment clause sōthēsetai (apodosis), and concludes with the condition clause eàn meínōsin (protasis). The first clause, then, portrays the future expectation (portrayal) of “being saved” by means (ablative) of “bearing children” (dià tēs teknogonías). Arranging the apodosis first connects the future active indicative third person verb sōthēsetai to the nominative feminine singular hē gunē “the woman will be saved” (2:14).[38] The verb sōthēsetai is future passive indicative (“will be saved”) and serves to “grammaticalize,” as Porter observes, “a projection or expectation, not an assertion, about reality.”[39] The question, here, concerns the portrayed future meaning of sōzō, a verb which has a wide lexical range.[40] In what way will she be saved? The context must provide the answer.[41] Its use in 2:15, however, is connected to the transgression (parabásei) of Eve (2:14), so the natural “Christian” sense of salvation is certainly possible as component of lives which profess godliness (5:14, teknogoneîn).[42] This expectation, however, only has a probability of occurring “when the conditions stated in the protasis are met.”[43]

The second clause (2:15b) marks the protasis of the third class condition, eàn with the aorist active subjunctive. The protasis, eàn meínōsin (“if they continue”), points to the woman’s salvation (2:15a) rather than the subjects of the third person plural verb here (2:15b).[44] Knight sees this “as a fact assumed to be true”;[45] hence, the sense, may very well be, “it is assumed to be true that if they continue.” The nearest antecedent to meínōsin (“if they continue”) is perhaps implied by teknogonías (2:15a), which is children.[46] Alternatively, however, “woman” is the subject of the entire pericope[47] and this is most likely the implied semantic subject for meínōsin. Consequently, the verb refers to Christian women who “continue in faith and love and consecration with sound judgment.” This is the condition of the protasis. If Christian women continue a life of godliness and faith, then they will be saved by means of their reception of their domestic role.

Ralph Gilmore once observed, “it is easier to show what the biblical principles involved are than to apply them in specific instances.”[48] The implications of this evaluation of the syntax of 1 Tim 2:11-15 are not easily summarized, but a few suggested guideposts can be suggested. The passage does divide into two main lines of thought (11-12 and 13-15).

The occasional nature of the problem, however, does not undermine the truth which it teaches. The guidelines may have emerged from a need to address heresy; however, heresy is corrected by truth. In 1 Tim 2:4, Paul made it clear that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.” This instruction then is to provide the truth regarding the contours of gender responsibilities in the assembly and outside of the assembly. This instruction can be difficult to digest, but that is a modern problem of application. It perhaps reflects a contemporary bias rather than an internal problem of the text itself. Moreover, Paul introduces the foundation for the command and prohibitions of 2:11-12 in the next verses (2:13-15).

First, 2:11-12 represents the second main injunction upon women in the assembly (2:8). It is first introduced as a command and then nuanced by two prohibitions, and finally balanced by an exhortation towards “quietness.” Despite some difficulty in the proper meaning of en hēsuchia, the fact that the phrase brackets the internal works of Paul’s command, prohibition, and exhortation, would suggest that the content defines how Paul used the phrase. In other words, having a focus on receiving biblical instruction (learn), while refraining from giving instruction in the assembly (not to teach) and having (therefore using) authority over a man, serve as explaining en hēsuchia . An attitude of gentleness which manifests itself in silence and full submission. This does perhaps imply that there was a serious breach in the Pauline protocol for women in the assembly which required instruction.

Second, 2:13-15 is a clear explanation that the command and prohibitions are logically connected to the creation narrative of Adam and Eve, and the narrative of the serpents deception of Eve and the willful participation to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2-3). Despite the literary mountain of literature designed to reconstruct the religious and philosophical world of Ephesus which may or may not provide insight into the internal problems of heresy in 1 Tim, the appeal to Gen 2-3 demonstrates that these “scriptures are not tied to culture. They are tied to creation.”[49] This is a significant commitment to the words of Paul. If the argument stems from Gen, then matters such as the order of creation, headship, Eve as a complement to Adam, Eve’s role in the fall by being deceived, Adam’s role in the fall void of deception, and the Divine punishments upon Adam, Eve, and the serpent are all integral parts of the theological foundation for 2:11-12.

Christian men and Christian women are to understand their identity and roles in this world from Scripture. Three particular issues are brought up to shape Paul’s readers understanding of gender roles in the assembly and when not assembled. First, Adam was formed first. When Adam was formed, it was not good that man should be alone so God “constructed” Eve out of his rib. Eve as a complement to Adam demonstrates a joint purpose and companionship; however, the fact remains Adam was formed first. There is an inherent position of responsibility and privilege for the first born males of a family in the Old Testament. This implies a standing expectation or responsibility on the part of men; however, this does not diminish women nor provide a reason to abdicate any responsibility or authority she may have.

Second, Eve was deceived and transgressed God’s command. When Paul quotes and alludes from Gen 3, he provides a window into Eve’s plight. Why did the serpent focus upon Eve? Speculations abound. The fact is she was full deceived in transgression. Gen 3 piers into Eve’s mind, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6 ESV). What is interesting is the LXX arranges the verb in the aorist active indicative “he deceived/enticed me”; however, in 1 Tim 2 Paul places the verbs in the aorist passive “he was formed/she was deceived.” Eve alone concedes to being deceived (Gen 3:16). In all of this, it must be remembered that regardless of the order of creation, regardless of the deception, regardless of the transgression, the woman as a profound role in the framework of God saving the world through Jesus.

Third, the limitations which exist when the church is assembled is not a reflection on her salvation. The true measure of the salvation which she longs to have is found in “child bearing/bearing children,” the unique capacity and role to be, like Eve, the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). In fact, the “renaming” of Eve in LXX into Zoe following the Hebrew text, demonstrate that even outside of Eden, in the shadow of the garden there was still a profound role Eve played. The mirror image, or type and antitype, is seen in the profound role of continuing on in a manner consistent with faith, love, and sanctification with sound judgment. The implications from this study no doubt raises many questions to our “modern” ears.

Conclusion

Bruce Morton summarizes well our understanding of the text in the face of negative reactions. He writes,

In a time filled with male and female ability and confidence, the teaching swims against a strong current. But the apostle is not saying that women should avoid teaching the Word. Instead, he is announcing the purposes and roles within church assemblies.[50]

Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (21st Century Christian, 2009)

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is as profound as it is complicated, but if one focuses on the flow of the syntax the exegete can eliminate some biases, whether they be complementarian or egalitarian. Personally, I have no vested interest in either point of view; what matters is how the syntax and the internal logic of the passage develops. The most difficult problem I see in applying 1 Tim 2:11-15 is that “the assembly” of first-century churches was vastly different than contemporary assemblies. This factor alone causes some the majority of the problems with concepts such as “having authority” and being “in silence/quietness.” In the end, churches and leaders always need to reassess their practices by what the text says, and here the boundaries of women participating in the assembly are based on creation and its principles not upon culture.

Endnotes

  1. Ann L. Bowman points to the difficulty of “unusual vocabulary … awkward grammar … references to the Old Testament … significant theological issues … and a flow of thought that is not so clear as it may seem at first glance.” See “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” BSac 149.594 (April-June 1992): 193.
  2. Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014); Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
  3. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931; repr. Nashville, TN: Broadman, n.d.), 4:572.
  4. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 79. Herbert W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1920), par. 2297. Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1924), 35.
  5. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Langham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 146.
  6. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 578-79.
  7. See George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 130-49.
  8. Everett Ferguson, “Tópos in 1 Timothy 2:8,” ResQ 33.2 (1991): 65-73. Ferguson disputes the entry in “topos,” BAGD, as “everywhere that Christian people or Christians live” (822). To this Ferguson affirms, “This is inadequate, for a stronger statement may be made to the effect that among Jews ‘place’ acquired in some contexts a technical reference to the ‘place of worship’” (66). The force of Ferguson’s contribution did not affect, unfortunately, the entry of the third edition (“topos,” BDAG 1011).
  9. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1992; repr., Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2005). Porter describes this word order structure as “Subject-predicate” which is a very basic pattern, but it does point to gune as the expressed subject (294-95). It is grammatically legitimate for manthaneto to find its subject in 2:9 (gunaikas), so the repetition (the “expressed subject”) is important as a “form of topic marker or shifter” (295).
  10. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 295.
  11. As a caveat, this is not a prohibition, which “forbids an action,” for it lacks the customary structural mē. This also dispels any notion to view the phrase as a suggestion or an option. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 486-87.
  12. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 486.
  13. Robertson and Hersey remind that “all imperatives are future in idea” which underscores the anticipation of obedience. See, Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1933; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979), 165. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 485. Chamberlain reminds that “the present imperative may have any of the characteristic ideas of linear action.” William D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1941; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 86.
  14. “hēsuchia,” BDAG 440.
  15. Philo, On Dreams 2.263, and Ignatius Eph 19.1; see “hēsuchia,” BDAG 440.
  16. Jack P. Lewis, “Quietness or Silence?” Gospel Advocate 130.7 (July 1988): 11-12. Lewis writes, “That silence from sound is an undisputed meaning of hēsuchia, plus the parallels to the prepositional phrase en hēsuchia, which we have cited, creates the presupposition that that is the proper meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11, 12. I would be glad to see a linguistic demonstration to the contrary” (12).
  17. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 598-99. Wallace cites epitrepo as a “helper verb” which requires an infinite to supplement and complete its meaning.
  18. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 86-87. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 525. Wallace argues extensively as to why epitrepo should be taken as a gnomic present over descriptive (progressive) present. Three points in particular were persuasive. There are no temporal indicators, the present tense is used with a generic object (gunaiki), and the exhortation is tied to creation.
  19. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 296.
  20. Barclay M. Newman, “authenteo,” A Concise Greek-English Dictionary to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 29; The meaning of this New Testament hapax is the subject of considerable study and debate and beyond the scope of this paper. In BDAG it falls under the basic category “to assume a stance of independent authority” such as “to give orders to, dictate to” (150); however, semantically, L&N have “to control in a domineering manner” (37.21). For opposing views, see Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, 1 Suffer not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 87-98; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).
  21. Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer not a Woman, 83-84.
  22. Some see a chiastic structure in 11-12 with en hēsuchia marking this group as a unit. (A) gunē en hēsuchia manthaneto en pasē hupotagē· (B) didaskein de gunaiki ouk epitrepo (B’) oude authentein andros, (A’) all’ einai en hēsuchia (Bowmann, “Women in Ministry,” 202-03).
  23. This citation to the Greek Genesis record reveals that there are corresponding verbs and nouns demonstrating an intentional recapitulation of the events in Eden in order to provide the rationale for the gender roles played out “in every place of assembly” (2:8-15).
  24. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 557-58.
  25. “protos,” BDAG 725. George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7th ed. enl. and impr. ed., ed. Joseph H. Thayer, trans. Gottlieb Lünemann (Andover: Draper, 1886), 464.
  26. Whereas Paul uses aorist passive indicative third person singular form, eplasthē, the LXX employs aorist active indicative third person singular, eplasen, four times in Gen 2 each time as a reference to God’s formation of Adam (7, 8, 15, 19). Moreover, a different word is used to describe the construction of Eve in Gen 2:19: okodomesen kurios ho theos ten pleuran … eis gunaika.
  27. R. C. H. Lenski writes, “kai adds the second fact to the first. This is not done because a second is needed; yet Paul lets two witnesses speak.” The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Lutheran Book Concern, 1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 567.
  28. Albrecht Oepke, “apatáō, eksapatáō, apátē,” TDNT 1:384-85. Oepke demonstrates briefly that the LXX use of the verb is seen commonly “to deceive” or “entice,” but only provides one tentative example of eksapatáō in the second century A.D. by Jewish translator Theodotion (Sus 56). The Old Greek version uses apatáō. In this passage, either verb attempts to offer a distortion (to entice, deceive).
  29. “de,” BDAG 212.
  30. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 578-79.
  31. Bruce M. Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency, 1969; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 79, 82. Knight does not place too much emphasis on the compound verb, but keeps this point open (The Pastoral Epistles, 144).
  32. eîpen hē gunē Ho óphis ēpátēsén me (Gen 3:13 LXX).
  33. Thomas C. Geer, Jr., “Admonitions to Women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15,” in vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity. ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993; repr., Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 295. Geer is right that the order of creation does not point to male “superiority” and that it is a reminder of complement Eve is to Adam, but he ignores that the Old Testament does give a voice to “the first born” as a pecking order for authority, responsibility, and privileges (Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 204-05).
  34. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 696-97. Dana and Mantey observe, that the contingency implies a certain level of “uncertainty,” yet it carries a tone of being “hopeful but hesitant.” Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927; repr., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 290.
  35. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 144-49.
  36. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 682-87. Wallace points out that some conditional relationships may have a semantic force such as “evidence-inference” or even “equivalence” (687).
  37. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 684. Wallace goes on to say that the protasis is “grammatically dependent, but semantically independent.” The apodosis can form a complete thought, but the protasis inherently cannot.
  38. Making this connection does not resolve the difficulty of coming to a conclusion as to the meaning of sōthēsetai.
  39. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 262.
  40. Newman, “sōzō,” A Concise Greek-English Dictionary to the New Testament. Newman has the following glosses: “save (of Christian salvation); save, rescue, deliver; keep safe, preserve; cure, make well” (179).
  41. In 1 Tim the use of the verb (1:15, 2:4, 4:16) shows connection to eternal life (1:15-16), arrive at gospel truth (2:4), and the result of remaining in the teaching (4:16).
  42. Werner Foerster, “sōzō, sōtēria,” TDNT 7:995. Foerster, observes, such a view “cannot be ruled out at” grammatically. Bowman surveys six possible interpretations and argues that an “interpretation that satisfies the grammatical and lexical problems and that also fit the larger context is … women will enter into eschatological salvation, with its accompanying rewards, through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood and in godly living generally” (“Women in Ministry,” 208).
  43. Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 183.
  44. Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet Co., 1970), 52.
  45. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 148.
  46. Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, 52.
  47. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 148. Knight makes an excellent point, “The concept of ‘remaining’ or ‘continuing’ would also seem to tie the subject of this verb to the subject of the previous clause (gunēγ); one does not talk about ‘continuing’ with a new subject but with a continuation of the previous subject.”
  48. Robert Randolph, et al., Gender and Ministry: The Role of the Women in the Work and Worship of the Church (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs, 1990), 77.
  49. Randolph, Gender and Ministry, 57.
  50. Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2009), 135.

Who is to Care for the Widows? (1 Tim 5:16)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Articles, Christian Ethics, Ecclesiology, Greek Studies, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Technical Studies, Textual Criticism, Translation, Women Studies
college papers

If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (ESV)

If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows. (NKJV)

The opening words of 1 Timothy 5:16 is plagued with four variant readings. At the outset, this paper will follow the order of the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (UBS5)[1] textual apparatus in arranging the variant readings. The first reading is in that which is in the main body of the UBS5 Greek text, “a woman that believes” (pistē), the second variant reading is “a man that believes” (pistos), the third variant reading is the longer “man or woman that believes” (pistos e pistē), and the fourth variant reading is the accusative plural “women that believe” (pistas).

The variants throw into question who are the believers to care for their widows. Is it Christian women or men (variants 1-2)? Is it either or (variant 3), or is it a general call to care (variant 4)? The following processes will be followed: (1) evaluate the external and internal evidence, then (2) observe its effect on modern translations, and then (3) apply the most probable reading to approach an understanding of the reading in 1 Timothy 5:16.

Evaluating the Evidence

External Evidence

The weight of the external evidence of the four variant readings are early, but they are not of the same strength. In particular, the second (pistos) and fourth (pistas) variant readings are void of extant Greek manuscripts. The second reading is represented by the Ethiopic tradition from the sixth century, half of Ambrose (397), Augustine (430), and a Latin translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cilicia. The meager witnesses for the fourth reading are exclusively translational itg (ninth) and vgmss (fourth and fifth).

The third longer reading (pistos e piste) is represented with witnesses which begin in the fourth and fifth centuries. The reading appears early in patristic witnesses such as John Chrysostom (407), Ambrosiaster (post 384), and also Ambrose; moreover, it has witness in Old Latin translations from the third and sixth centuries (itb, d). The earliest extant Greek manuscript witness, however, is the bilingual (Greek and Latin) sixth-century uncial Codex Claromontanus (D 06).[2]

Despite the earlier witness of the longer variant reading against pistos and pistas, the uncials which support the first reading (pistē) are much earlier. These witnesses are from the fourth and fifth centuries and are traditionally more substantial in their textual value.[3] The fourth-century evidence has Aleph (Sinaiticus), along with fifth-century codexes Alexandrinus (A) and palimpsests Ephraem (C 04), and uncial 048.[4] Patristic evidence has early witnesses as Athanasius (373) and mid-fifth century Pelagius. Translational evidence for the preferred reading is in the fourth-century Sahidic Coptic text in Egypt (copsa). The early dates of the external evidence weigh in agreement with the UBS5 inclusion of the preferred reading.

Geographic Distribution

The geographical distribution is spread somewhat evenly among Eastern and Western text-type lines. The longer reading is distributed widely in the West more so than in the East. The inclusion of the longer reading is supported by Alexandrian Uncials, Western D, and Byzantium readings (K 018, L020). It is also distributed in the Greek Church (Chrysostom, and a majority of Lectionary readings) and Latin Fathers Ambrosiaster and Ambrose. Nevertheless, pistē has the widest breadth of distribution, impressively stretching from Greek Father Athanasius (373) in Alexandria, Egypt, in the East to the Latin Father Pelagius (418) in Britain in the far West at roughly the same time. The overlap of both readings in the translational evidence is also equally distributed and this is best typified by Latin Father Ambrose who is a witness to both readings; however, the longer reading is mainly supported by the Western witnesses. The geographical distribution of the second and third readings are both substantially Western.

Regarding text-type affinities and other aspects of these particular variants, the first and third variants share text types and there is some external evidence that needs to be considered. First, the first and third readings both share Alexandrian and Western text types, with the longer reading, having late witnesses from the Byzantium text type. The second and fourth readings have no text-type witnesses. Second, in the evaluation of the external evidence of the four readings, it is clear that the second and fourth readings have connections to early witnesses but are relegated to translational evidence in Old Latin and the Vulgate.

Moreover, even the patristic witnesses for the second reading are Latin such as Ambrose and Augustine, and even the witness from Greek Father Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cilicia, is only found in a Latin translation. This suggests that unless better evidence emerges, the second and fourth readings should continue to be viewed as inferior readings which are probably translational in origin.[5]

One piece of the manuscript evidence which has not been considered is that the textual apparatus also lists a considerable amount of minuscule evidence for the longer reading both from Western and Eastern text types; however, the earliest minuscule witnesses are from the tenth century (1175, 1739, 1912), eleventh century (104, 256, 424, 459, 1962), and later. This evidence is consistent with the late witnesses from the ninth century in Byzantium uncials K and L, and the Alexandrian 044 from a similar period. The abundance of these manuscripts which are geographically dispersed very well may prove to be sufficient evidence for their primacy as the text reading; however, the majority of late manuscripts are not weightier than the strong early Alexandrian texts which support the preferred text of the UBS5.

There are strong lines of evidence for dismissing the second and fourth readings because the external evidence is purely translational and patristic. The first and the third readings have competitive manuscript witnesses and have comparative geographic distribution, which slightly leans toward the third reading; nevertheless, the quality of the early uncial witnesses, translational evidence, and distribution between patristic fathers from Alexandria to Britain in the same window of time favor the preferred reading of “woman that believes” (pistē).

Internal Probabilities

Next, it is important to evaluate the internal evidence of the four variants readings and determine which reading has the best transcriptional probability of being the correct reading.[6] Currently, the editorial committee of the UBS5 places a {B} rating for the short reading piste which “indicates that the text is almost certain.”[7] Among the variants, there are three short readings (piste, pistos, pistas) and one longer reading (pistos e pistē).

The shortest reading (pistē) with the most external support is a difficult reading, for it makes Christian women solely responsible for the care of widows,[8] as opposed to a more general statement that calls all believers to care for the widows of the Christian community. It would certainly be more likely to have been broadened, especially in light of a few broad tis statements in 1 Timothy 5 (4, 8, 15).

Among the shorter readings, the second (pistos) and fourth (pistas) readings appear as linguistic changes intended to understand the care for widows as a broad Christian responsibility (“if any believer” and “if anyone has widows who are believers”). It would be likely for a scribe, or translator, to broaden the responsibility to “anyone” or to “a believer” than to limit it to the more difficult shorter reading, “a woman who believes” (i.e. a Christian sister). The latter best explains the former two readings.

The shorter reading and in the longer third reading (pistos e pistē). The longer reading makes the care of widows a gender-inclusive responsibility in the church (“any man or woman who believes”). Regarding longer variant readings, the conventional textual critical wisdom prefers a longer reading so long as the change is unintentional;[9] from a practical point of view, a copyist would “more likely” omit words than to add words.

Metzger concedes that “it is possible” that, if the longer reading is original, a copyist may have accidentally omitted pistos e;[10] however, the longer reading has late attestation and may be best explained as a conflation of the variants (pistos and pistas) attempting to broaden the responsibility to care for widows in 1 Timothy 5:16 to both male and female believers (cf. 4, 8). This would effectively diminish the leading role of believing women that Paul had in mind.[11] However, the more difficult reading is piste and is better attested; in fact, it requires an explanation as to why Christian sisters are called to care for their widows. The first reading, then, is better attested, shorter, and more difficult; and in terms of probability is a natural impetus to explain the other variants.

How English Translations Stack

The direction most modern translations go is to follow the strength of the textual basis for piste, “a woman who believes” over the longer reading in 1 Timothy 5:16.

Major English New Testaments which take the longer variant reading, however, are the AV/KJV tradition (1611, 1979), Moffatt (1922), NEB (1961); moreover, less familiar versions such as The Living Oracles/Sacred Writings (1828) and McCord’s Everlasting Gospel/FHV5 (2005) also include the longer reading.

Since the time of the American Standard tradition (1901, 1971, 1995), the following major translation has accepted the shorter reading: the Revised Standard tradition (1952, 1990), JB tradition (1966, 1985), the NAB tradition (1970, 1986, 2011), TEV (1976), the NIV tradition (1984, 2002, 2011), ETR (1987), REB (1989), NCV (1991), CEV (1995), NET (1996-2006), HCSB (1999), and ESV (2001). The less-known Plain English Bible (2003), The Voice Bible (2012), and the Jehovah’s Witness’ NWTR (2013) also have shorter and better-attested reading.

The wholesale selection of the shorter reading by the vast majority of modern English translations provides a supportive scholastic culture to the present evaluation of the external and internal evidence in favor of pistē.

Applying “Believing Woman”

Finally, it is critical to find the application of the present conclusion that the shorter variant has the strongest probability to be the text of 1 Timothy 5:16 and understand Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the care of widows in the church. The verse is situated in the final words of the pericope concerning directives for the care of widows and the expectations of young widows (1 Tim 5:3-16).[12] 

There is a strong distinction made between the church (5:8b, 9, 16) and Christian families with widows (5:4, 8a), and a distinction made between vulnerable widows to which the church has a responsibility to (5:5-7, 9-10) and young widows who should remarry and establish a proper family life (5:11-15). The last verse (5:16) apparently weaves these four counterpoint groups into a praxis for ministry towards widows which brings the Christian family to the forefront of such benevolent ministry; moreover, every Christian sister (widowed or not) is placed at the focal point to care for any widows they are related to (“she has”).

The counterpoint in this text is that such family ministry in Christian homes, carried out by a “woman who believes,” allows the church to care for the widows who are truly vulnerable (5:3, 5a, 16b). Bruce Winter observes:

Christian women were being called upon to relieve the church of the extra mouths to feed who were their widowed relatives. There is no censure in v. 16, but a call to shoulder responsibility for kinship relationships so that the church can adequately support widows who are without relatives.[13]

Bruce W. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16.” TynBul 39 (1988)

Indeed, this Pauline injunction demonstrates a corrective in the Ephesian church culture where Timothy evangelized. Apparently, the church had been “burdened” and “exhausted” (bareō/omai) financially for sure;[14] but also, perhaps the capacity to serve had reached its limit and so the church was significantly fettered.

Nevertheless, Paul is clear there are widows whom the church, as a community, must help (the true widow), but there are widows who must be cared for by their Christian families. In the latter point, Paul argues out the principle at stake: “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). Paul then calls upon Christian women specifically to meet this ministry need.

In the ideal realm, Christian families are responsible for their own widowed grandmother as a demonstration of godly repayment (5:4). Christians males (5:8) are responsible for this service (presumably the husband of the family), but the transition to women believers (remarried women, wives) is significant since they are described as the ones who “run” and “control” their household (5:14).[15]

Part of the power of connecting “wife” and household authority is that it “implies the new and improved position which was secured to women by the Gospel.”[16] Furthermore, this requires a full range of administrative responsibilities.[17] The practical application, then, appears to ask of the “believing woman” her full range of resources and ability to care for “her widow.” As such, if “a woman took good care of her household [including her widow], the enemy would not be able to say anything against them.”[18]

This understanding would encourage a multi-generational inclusive model of family responsibilities as part of a Christian worldview. There are, however, many methods of care for the older members of the family. Still, as Walter Liefeld[19] observes, a few considerations should be made to evaluate the need of a widow:

  1. Determine the actual needs of the widow. Do not presume to know their needs or abilities. It is critical to appreciate their abilities – known or latent. Moreover, consider that not all needs are physical (financial, home); some needs are emotional, spiritual, and intellectual.
  2. Revisit and reaffirm family ties and responsibilities. For family cultures that tend to live far from each other, it is vital to reconnect and reestablish family ties. Distance is not an excuse. Communication, visitation, and creating space for one’s widow to find their new or expanded niche.
  3. One must take into account a widow’s responsibility. Truly, a widow must learn to grieve in a healthy manner. Paul encouraged the younger widows to reestablish a family and marry. He further recognized a widow’s need to manage and maintain her relationship with God. Ultimately, she must find her role in ministry to others.
  4. The church has a role in supporting a family to care for their widow. (a) Consider enlisting a member to qualify for hospice care in order to be a bridge between the congregation and the grieving widow. (b) Develop an awareness of the stages of bereavement to better help to bring comfort and encouragement. (c) Develop a team that is knowledgeable of basic financial instruments and entitlement programs one might be amenable to. This would help bring awareness of issues. (d) There should be a visitation program that the elders, deacons and preachers, and members should participate in to check in on various needs. (e) While a congregation should not act as a private investigator’s office, a congregation should not act blindly toward senior abuse.

These are but a few items to consider in the quest toward New Testament discipleship concerning the care of widows.

Concluding Thoughts

While this paper was specifically focused upon the injunction by Paul to “any woman of faith” and her responsibility to care for “her” widow, it is critical to remember that this is one side of the coin for the care of widows in the church. It is true that the church should not be so burdened that it cannot function to carry out its mission; however, the community of the church has a responsibility toward its widows who are widows indeed.

The conclusion drawn here is that the shorter, well-attested variant reading piste best explains the other variants. Furthermore, it better weaves within the counterpoints in the discussion which finds closure in verse 16. It provides insight into the service which Christian women rendered on behalf of their faith, as an extension of their Christian family, and as an asset to the church and its ministry to its own widows. To add the fourth reading (pistos e pistē) provides an additional counterpoint that detracts from the focus on the “younger widows” (5:11).

Instead of carousing (5:11-13) they are to remarry and minister to their own widows whoever they may be (14-15). Knight legitimately proposes the possibility that this ministry to widows is an extension of the Christian sister’s husband and her household;[19] therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that when she ministers to her widows, she ministers to her family’s widow.

The focus on “a woman who believes” is a powerful reminder of the importance Christian sister have in the church’s ministry and in their Christian homes. As in the early church, so today the need for “women of faith” to minister still exists within the church and their families.

The Voice Bible rendering reflects this emphasis:

Tell any woman of faith: if you have a widow in your family, help her so the church is unencumbered and is free to extend aid to the widows who are truly in need of its help.[20]

Endnotes

  1. (UBS5) Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
  2. Frederick G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible: A Students Handbook, Rev. ed. (London: Duckworth, 1949), 96.
  3. (NA28) Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 63*. There exists no papyrus testimony which supports any of the variant readings in 1 Timothy 5:16.
  4. The fourth-century Codex Vaticanus (B) is silent on the variant readings due to the fact that it lacks the letters to Timothy. See Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 38.
  5. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 574-75.
  6. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12*-14*; J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 111-14.
  7. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14*.
  8. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (1957; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 104.
  9. Greenlee, New Testament Textual Criticism, 112.
  10. Since the extant evidence for these two variants is translational it is possible that the variants emerged in that process (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 575), or in the process of oral transmission since pistos and pistas may be pronounced the same (Greenlee, New Testament Textual Criticism, 57).
  11. Walter L. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Kindle ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), loc. 9699. Liefeld writes, this “would not be the first time that an ancient copyist changed the text to give preference to the male” (fn 21).
  12. Bruce W. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16.” TynBul 39 (1988): 83-99.
  13. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (1992.; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 222. Winter, “Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16,” 94.
  14. Gottlob Schrenk, “baros, barus, bareō,” TDNT 1: 561.
  15. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “despotes, oikodespotēs, oikodespoteō,” TDNT 2: 49.
  16. Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 61.
  17. Linda Belleville, “Commentary on 1 Timothy,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009), CBC 17: 95.
  18. Belleville, CBC 17: 101.
  19. Liefeld, 1 & 2 Timothy, 186-88 (loc. 3722-65).
  20. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 229.
  21. The Voice Bible: Step into the Story of Scripture (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2012).